SCOTUS - Supreme Court of the United States

[Ajidica]

No, preferences aren't something people can change freely, in anybody's "world". It's a generalizable statement. Preferring "man" vs "woman" vs "literally anything" (even things that have nothing to do with sex or relationships) does not imply choice. The choice of those is made based on the preferences (which themselves are not chosen), unless you can refute this as a logical proposition.

This has direct implications on how "bad" it is when someone uses the word. If the rejection of the usage is "preference implies choice", the rejection is wrong. Preference does not imply that. Doesn't matter whether it involves LGBTQ, sex frequency, or ice cream flavor.

I don't give a rat's $$$ about what "connotations" people choose to have regarding a particular usage of the word. There are plenty of common-use contexts for "preferences", almost none of which imply choosing the preference itself. People who want to take it in a bad way can do so, but they can also be duly ignored for acting like children.

Or if you do believe that one can freely change preference, go ahead and prefer to agree with Barrett then.

The issue isn't about semantics, but that a lot of individuals (largely but not exclusively on the religious right) used the phrase "sexual preference" to push the idea that someone being LGBT was a choice, like having a foot fetish or being into BDSM, and thus shouldn't be granted federal and state civil rights protections like those granted on grounds of race or gender. If you are dead set on using the phrase "sexual preference" to satisfy your inner pedant, more power to you; as long as you understand the context behind the phrase.

EDIT: Thanks for typo spotting Berzerker, fixed a sentence I clearly forgot what I was writing about halfway through.

 

[Berzerker]

did you mean shouldn't be granted?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The issue isn't about semantics, but that a lot of individuals (largely but not exclusively on the religious right) used the phrase "sexual preference" to push the idea that someone being LGBT was a choice, like having a foot fetish or being into BDSM, and thus shouldn't be granted federal and state civil rights protections like those granted on grounds of race or gender. If you are dead set on using the phrase "sexual preference" to satisfy your inner pedant, more power to you; as long as you understand the context behind the phrase.

EDIT: Thanks for typo spotting Berzerker, fixed a sentence I clearly forgot what I was writing about halfway through.

Some individuals could push the idea that "driving" means aggressively targeting people for manslaughter, but that still doesn't mean a typical person should assume you're going to commit manslaughter if you tell us you're "driving to work".

Also, you seem to be missing the point I was making. I'm not convinced people "choose to like feet" or "choose to like BDSM". These seem to be things that people choose to go for because they already like them FIRST. They don't choose to like them, they chose to do them BECAUSE they like them.

This therefore isn't a matter of pedantics. If we accept that preferences are not chosen, but rather that choices are made contingent on preferences, that can and should influence policy decisions. Getting fired because someone finds out a person is into BDSM or feet *should* be treated the same as them being fired for being cis or LGBTQ unless one actually believes that people choose preferences. Foot fetish folks are probably even more of a minority than anyone in the LGBTQ, % wise, and it's not like they'll suffer less if ostracized, harassed, kicked out of employment, etc.

TL : DR version: I reject "the context behind the phrase" because that context is nonsense on its face. People don't choose preferences, so asserting sexual preference doesn't assert a choice of sexual preference.

Also, if you don't generally take the religious right's interpretation of reality/meaning as legit, why should you take an obviously false context/conclusion that goes against the word's meaning and regular use? Why should the right's interpretation be given credence in this particular scope when it's obviously mostly or even completely wrong?

 

[Ajidica]

You must be a blast at parties.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You must be a blast at parties.

If the argument is too hard for you just say so. Or is that how I should interpret this ?

 

[RobAnybody]

FWIW, I think Adjica & TMIT are not really disagreeing, just talking past each other. TMIT is saying "you can't control your sexual preferences". Adjica is saying "the phrase sexual preference has negative connotations". You're both right, IMO. As a philosophical/biological concept, TMIT is right. As a very specific linguistic phrase with political consequences, Adjica is right. I honestly don't think you disagree, just are talking past each other.

EDIT: Apologies, I just realized I was spelling Ajidica wrong

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Why should the right's interpretation be given credence in this particular scope when it's obviously mostly or even completely wrong?

Because the person in question obviously has an animus against the lgbtq community and their language in regards to them is a red flag of their intention to **** them over?

This isn't rocket science.

 

[Sommerswerd]

If the argument is too hard for you just say so. Or is that how I should interpret this ?

This isn't an abstract concept... it has substantial, in some cases, deadly implications for people, our fellow citizens... and even our CFC members. This is about more than winning the argument.

This topic confounds me, because I admit that I would prefer an outlook based on "preference" that acknowledges, respects and defends it... I also realize that for many people it is alot more like hard wiring and less like preference, and certainly not anything like "choice". Orientation is a preferable metric, because it is an absolute defense to the religious objection... but that ironically, equates preference with choice and thus sacrifices preference on the altar of purity... which I have mixed feelings about... Forget mixed feelings.. I don't like it. I think adults should have a loud and proud, legally and governmentally supported ability to love, sex, stare longingly at... whoever they want.

"Choice" in this context is pretty offensive. Can we agree on that? You like who you like. You like what you like. Your "choice" is almost more of an expression of what you think you can get away with... within the bounds of what you actually like. But what you like is much more hardwired.

 

[Estebonrober]

Also, if you don't generally take the religious right's interpretation of reality/meaning as legit, why should you take an obviously false context/conclusion that goes against the word's meaning and regular use? Why should the right's interpretation be given credence in this particular scope when it's obviously mostly or even completely wrong?

because. . .

It leads to this kind of thing. . .

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/1...dzdRZEgg921u6UgoX67t1CKu2DlJ6gTD6bx-legLtPnrA

Texas social workers are criticizing a state regulatory board’s decision this week to remove protections for LGBTQ clients and clients with disabilities who seek social work services.

The Texas State Board of Social Work Examiners voted unanimously Monday to change a section of its code of conduct that establishes when a social worker may refuse to serve someone. The code will no longer prohibit social workers from turning away clients on the basis of disability, sexual orientation or gender identity.

So even though I agree with your terminology the terminology has been twisted in a way that has lead to discrimination that literally kills.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

"Choice" in this context is pretty offensive. Can we agree on that? You like who you like. You like what you like. Your "choice" is almost more of an expression of what you think you can get away with... within the bounds of what you actually like. But what you like is much more hardwired.

We agree on that obviously. My entire point has been that it is unreasonable to assert that preferences are something people can choose.

This topic confounds me, because I admit that I would prefer an outlook based on "preference" that acknowledges, respects and defends it... I also realize that for many people it is alot more like hard wiring and less like preference

Again I emphasize that it's not clear these are actually distinct from each other. Preference appears to be a subset of our hard wiring. Thus I consider preference to *also* be an absolute defense to the religious objection, which was never relevant anyway outside of the church itself (*assuming the country legitimately separates church and state and treats people fairly*, which unfortunately it does not).

I do not think it is worthy to sac "preferences" and allow them to be treated as choice, because they are not choice. What people choose are their actions, not their preferences. Stigmatizing preferences opens up subsets of the population to discrimination and abuse, and we've already established that's a bad thing in general.

 

[EgonSpengler]

A woman on the radio, I think she's a local judge, just said something like, "Under a philosophy of [Constitutional] Originalism, the Dred Scott decision has to be considered constitutional. Originalism naturally narrows civil rights." Boom. (I'm paraphrasing a little, because I only started paying close attention after she started talking. Still, I'm going to file this one away. I hope I can find the recording later, so I can get it verbatim.)

 

[Angst]

Personally, I'm sad that atypical sexuality needs to be defended as something you're born with in order to gain rights.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe it's a choice.

It's more that non-heterosexual sexual behavior (discounting damaging philia here) don't actually hurt anyone, so wanting its rights stripped is always cruelty, whether it's a choice or not.

I also understand that understanding that it's not a choice was a huge part of legitimizing it into being just somewhat accepted back in the day. But it sometimes feels like you're buying into the rhetoric of the toxic parts of the right; they have the power in the debate, so you have to adapt as part of a defense for something that shouldn't have to be defended.

"Choosing homosexual behavior is a sin."
"But it's not a choice, I can't help it."

I understand why demonstrating the fact that it's not a choice is necessary in the context. But it shouldn't matter at all, and I'm sad that it has to matter.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Biden is still being silent on packing the court, but has reemphasized that he's not a fan of the idea. That's the safe way to play this scenario but dammit, I want assurances he's actually going to do something to stop reverse Republican court packing.

 

[Ajidica]

Biden is still being silent on packing the court, but has reemphasized that he's not a fan of the idea. That's the safe way to play this scenario but dammit, I want assurances he's actually going to do something to stop reverse Republican court packing.

Honestly, I think Biden should just flat out say he won't propose court packing. We all know the Democrats won't take a supermajority in the Senate this election, and should the Democrats get a senatorial supermajority in 2022, Biden can always word his statement that he didn't propose court packing, it came from a completely separate branch of government acting within their constitutional perogative.
And in 2022 nobody will remember a line or two from a 2020 debate. If a week is a long time in politics, just think how long two years is.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I hope the democrats get a majority and ditch the filibuster altogether. We can't wait until 2022 to begin fixing the damage already done by Trump and if they leave the filibuster then nothing will get done.

 

[Ajidica]

I hope the democrats get a majority and ditch the filibuster altogether. We can't wait until 2022 to begin fixing the damage already done by Trump and if they leave the filibuster then nothing will get done.

I'm genuinely nervous about ditching the filibuster. Sure, it given an increasing minority of voters not representative of the country a de facto veto over government policy, but it also let the Democrats stop a lot of GOP proposals because the GOP couldn't get to a supermajority.

 

[Estebonrober]

I'm genuinely nervous about ditching the filibuster. Sure, it given an increasing minority of voters not representative of the country a de facto veto over government policy, but it also let the Democrats stop a lot of GOP proposals because the GOP couldn't get to a supermajority.

They should never loose the House again until the Republicans change their platform. I for one am not worried about retribution in this case. The census comes out next year and realignment will happen across the nation. It will be critical to make sure the Democratic party does not fudge it up the way they did last time.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

They should never loose the House again until the Republicans change their platform. I for one am not worried about retribution in this case. The census comes out next year and realignment will happen across the nation. It will be critical to make sure the Democratic party does not fudge it up the way they did last time.

Speaking of...the SCOTUS agreed to hear and expedite a case around Trump's attempt to make redistricting not include the population of non-citizens. This seems to plainly fly in the face of what the constitution says but I wouldn't put it past a 6-3 court to grant this new disenfranchisement to the GOP.

 

[Estebonrober]

Speaking of...the SCOTUS agreed to hear and expedite a case around Trump's attempt to make redistricting not include the population of non-citizens. This seems to plainly fly in the face of what the constitution says but I wouldn't put it past a 6-3 court to grant this new disenfranchisement to the GOP.

This is what I mean when I state this court has lost any legitimacy it might have had as a pious institution. It has disenfranchised americans without exception for over ten years now. It is obvious the game that is afoot, hell we have the notes their operatives had written up on how they were moving to do it.

 

[Ajidica]

They should never loose the House again until the Republicans change their platform. I for one am not worried about retribution in this case. The census comes out next year and realignment will happen across the nation. It will be critical to make sure the Democratic party does not fudge it up the way they did last time.

As we have learned over the last two years, there is a hell of a lot the Senate can do all by itself.